The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant predicted the occurrence of danger and did not cause a person’s mental disorder.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On the assertion of mental disorder, the lower court determined that the Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to considering the Defendant’s behavior before and after committing the instant crime.

It was determined that it did not seem to have reached a state or weak.

In addition, in light of the fact that there are a considerable number of records that the defendant committed violent crimes while under the influence of alcohol, and that the defendant was well aware of the violence tendency at the time of drinking, the defendant was in a mental and physical state at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

In light of the above, the defendant's crime committed by the defendant constitutes "an act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder" under Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.

(2) Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the records, closely, the lower court did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of the instant crime, as indicated in its reasoning.

Even if the defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the crime in this case, it is judged that the crime in this case constitutes “an act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused his own mental disorder” under Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act.